In the Interest of E.H. and D.H., Minor Children

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
_______________

No. 25-2089
Filed March 11, 2026
_______________

In the Interest of E.H. and D.H., Minor Children,
D.H., Father,
Appellant.
_______________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County,
The Honorable Joan M. Black, Judge.
_______________

AFFIRMED
_______________

Caleb T. Detweiler of Brenneman, Detweiler & Goertz, LLP, Iowa City,
attorney for appellant father.

Brenna Bird, Attorney General, and Tamara Knight, Assistant Attorney
General, attorneys for appellee State.

Joseph Pavelich of Fitzgerald, Klesner & Pavelich, PLC, Iowa City, attorney
and guardian ad litem for minor children.
_______________

Considered without oral argument
by Tabor, C.J., and Badding and Langholz, JJ.
Opinion by Badding, J.

1
BADDING, Judge.

This family’s history with the juvenile court spans almost a decade.
We need not recount it in full. Instead, we begin in September 2023, when
the two boys at issue—born in 2016 and 2019—were removed from their
mother because of concerns about drug use in her home. Their father, who
also struggles with substance use, was incarcerated. The children were
formally placed with their paternal grandmother, where they would live off-
and-on until a termination hearing in September 2025. 1 Finding neither
parent had addressed the issues preventing the boys’ return, the juvenile
court terminated their rights and transferred guardianship to the Department
of Health and Human Services. Only the father appeals.

We review the termination of parental rights de novo, applying a three-
step inquiry that tracks the framework of our termination statute. See In re
L.B., 970 N.W.2d 311, 313 (Iowa 2022); Iowa Code § 232.116 (2025). Here,
the father challenges just one part of that analysis: whether termination was
in the best interests of his children. Because he recently started a five-year
prison sentence, the father cannot care for the boys. But he argues that “the
court should explore all options to effectuate the placement that is in the
children’s best interests.” And in the father’s view, a better outcome would
be to transfer guardianship of the boys to the paternal grandmother, who was
their “de facto parent for over two years.” See Iowa Code § 232.117(5)
(authorizing the court, after a termination hearing, to enter an order
consistent with section 232.104 rather than terminating parental rights); id.

1
The boys returned to their mother’s home for a trial placement between
December 2023 and June 2024. They were once again removed after the mother tested
positive for methamphetamine and police found drugs and sex paraphernalia at the home.

2
§ 232.104(2)(d)(2) (allowing the court to transfer guardianship and custody
of the child to an adult relative).

We are unpersuaded that transferring guardianship to the
grandmother would better serve these boys. In general, “a guardianship is
not a legally preferable alternative to termination.” In re W.M., 957 N.W.2d
305, 315 (Iowa 2021) (citation omitted). And while there is no dispute that
the grandmother was an adequate caregiver throughout much of this case,
things had changed by the termination hearing. In June 2025, the department
put a safety plan into place based on allegations of drug use and improper
supervision by the grandmother. Sweat patches collected from the
grandmother in July and August were positive for cocaine. The August patch
was also positive for methamphetamine. Soon after, the grandmother
stopped complying with tests and fell out of contact with the department. On
this record, we cannot find that a guardianship with the grandmother would
better serve the boys’ long-term needs. See In re A.S., 906 N.W.2d 467, 478
(Iowa 2018) (affirming the denial of a grandparent guardianship where
questions remained as to whether grandparents “would actually provide
more stability and safety for the child”).

The better path is termination. As the juvenile court put it, the boys
“need sober, consistent caretakers” who can provide the “structure,
nurturance, and guidance” they have been denied for too long. We decline
to extend their time in limbo. Termination will pave the way to adoption, and
to the safety and stability they deserve. See In re P.L., 778 N.W.2d 33, 41 (Iowa
2010).

AFFIRMED.

3